philosophical thinking time (theory on fate)

[Lurker27]

Further notes on the Heisenberg U.P.

Basically, the simplified rule is "measuring something changes it"...As we become aware of electron position, we've changed it's velocity.

A humourous analogy is that of election predictions..."everytime i eat meat on a tuesday, democrats win" As you become aware of this fact, you are altering it's validity.

[deadeye9]

It is a fundamental property of nature that position and velocity cannot
be precisely determined, simultaneously. The act of measuring one messes
with the other.

[Lohman446]

It is a fundamental property of nature that position and velocity cannot
be precisely determined, simultaneously. The act of measuring one messes
with the other.

But, our inability to measure, and thus our inability to predict - does not invalidate the predictability, well in this case the fatelistic nature, of something.

[deadeye9]

But it would invalidate any proof of the fatalistic nature of something.
If you can't prove it, does it still exist?

[bjjb99]

I would argue that precise determination and measurability are the same thing.
Precise determination of an electron's position and velocity is not possible.

It is true that determination is another word for meauring; however, I don't think that's what I stated. What I was trying to say is that a system may well possess a precise (infinitely precise) state, but that state may not be measured with arbirtary precision because the very act of measuring directly interferes with the system.

The fact that an electron's position and velocity cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrary precision stems from physical limitations in the "ruler" being used. Whether a better "ruler" exists remains to be seen.

BJJB

[deadeye9]

The fact that an electron's position and velocity cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrary precision stems from physical limitations in the "ruler" being used. Whether a better "ruler" exists remains to be seen.

BJJB

It stems from a fundamental property of matter, not any "ruler" limitations.
No matter how good the "ruler", it will never be able to measure both at the same time.

[bjjb99]

But it would invalidate any proof of the fatalistic nature of something.
If you can't prove it, does it still exist?

I like to think I exist, but I don't know if I could truly prove so.

BJJB

[bjjb99]

It stems from a fundamental property of matter, not any "ruler" limitations.
No matter how good the "ruler", it will never be able to measure both at the same time.

What fundamental property of matter are you speaking of?

I don't believe I claimed there ever would be a ruler capable of measuring a system's state to arbitrary precision.

What I am claiming is the inability to know a thing does not necessarily preclude its existence. It is impossible for me to know with absolute certainty whether or not I will have barbecue for dinner tonight, but I do know with absolute certainty that one of those two states will come to pass. It may be absolutely impossible to measure an electron's position and velocity simultaneously with arbitrary precision, but does that necessarily mean that the electron's position and velocity don't both exist simultaneously with arbitrary precision?

Do the concepts of "position" and "velocity" truly have any meaning when discussing quantum-mechanical phenomena?

BJJB

[slade]

Not with infinite smallness of nature , because as much as we like to think it, atoms/quarks (whatever small unit you want to use ) are not all perfectly alike even of the same matter. This causes an exponential unpredictability directly proportional to the amount of small matter you are attempting to predict . This line of thinking always leads back to the question: is the universe infinite ? , if it isn't infinite then it is predictable and vice versa.

im not trying to argue that everything that happens in this world is actually humanly predictable (especially at this point), im saying that, if my train of thought is true, then there is only one way in which events can occur.

I don't think this is accurate. According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle,
one cannot measure the position or velocity of a particle to an arbitrary precision.
That is, nothing is completely predictable.

im not trying to argue that it is humanly predictable, as i stated above i am trying to say that, "chance" is not at all involved.

Pyro - umm, this theory doesnt have anything to do with my religion (or lack thereof). athiests can beleive in free will, they could beleive in this theory, it doesnt matter. im actually somewhat borderline, part of the reason for posting this was that i was hoping one of you could think of something to disprove this theory.

lurker27 - great post... but also somewhat confusing, i havent even heard of half the things you made referance to.
bjjb99 - good response, you summed up most of what i would have said... except for the parts of his post which were completely over my head. maybe ill read it some time when i havent just spent 12 hours at school, only to come home to read on quantum mechanics.

Basically, the simplified rule is "measuring something changes it"...As we become aware of electron position, we've changed it's velocity.

yeah i saw that on a web page i came to when i did a search, but i still dont entirely understand it. how can simply knowing an electron's position physically change its velocity? if you mean what deadeye said, then yes i understand that.

"everytime i eat meat on a tuesday, democrats win"

so go vegetarian . sorry, i couldnt resist

But it would invalidate any proof of the fatalistic nature of something.
If you can't prove it, does it still exist?

the existance of something does not rely on your knowledge of its existance.

[bjjb99]

yeah i saw that on a web page i came to when i did a search, but i still dont entirely understand it. how can simply knowing an electron's position physically change its velocity? if you mean what deadeye said, then yes i understand that.

It's not a matter of knowing or not knowing, but rather a matter of how one obtains the knowledge. In order to find out where an electron is, something has to interact with it. That something could be light (photons), subatomic particles (maybe other electrons), etc. All of these "somethings" carry energy with them, and they trade some of that energy with the electron during the interaction. If the electron gains or loses energy, its velocity changes. The very act of finding out where the electron is located changes how much energy the electron possesses, and thus alters its velocity.

Heisenberg postulated that since energy itself is quantized, there must be some minimum nonzero discrete amount of energy that could be exchanged during measurement. That minimum energy exchange is what limits the precision to which an electron's position and velocity (read: energy) can be measured simultaneously. There is a fundamental uncertainty in the measurement results as a result of the measuring process itself. Hence, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle -- there is a limit to how precisely you can know the state of a system, and that limit is dependent on the smallest nonzero "packet" of energy one can exchange with the system being measured.

As far as I can tell, Heisenberg didn't claim whether or not the state of a system could _exist_ with arbitrary precision, only that said state could not be _measured_ to arbitrary precision.

BJJB